Economic Geography of the European integration Economic Geography I. International Business bachelor...

Economic Economic Geography of Geography of the European integrationthe European integration

Economic GeographyEconomic GeographyI. International Business bachelor study programme (BA)I. International Business bachelor study programme (BA)Spring term 201Spring term 20144/201/20155..CUB Department of Economic Geography and Futures StudiesCUB Department of Economic Geography and Futures Studies

dr. Jeney Lászlódr. Jeney LászlóSenior lecturerSenior lecturer

jeney@caesar.elte.hujeney@caesar.elte.hu

22

Factors of European integration process after WW2. Military/defence factors (important rather at the

very beginning)– Soviet military threats (initially German)

Economic (later)– Balancing of the American hegemony in world economy– Collapse of colonial empires– Scientific-technical revolution large-series production,

but small national markets– Expenditures of R&D, free movement of capital– Joining of energetic, transport, telecommunication and

informatic system spread of services Principled idea

– ‘European thinkers’, Europe as a country (rules, parliament, constitution, citizenship, currency, flag, anthem, troops)

33

Beginning of the European integration: Treaty of Rome, 1958.I. ECSC – European Coal and Steel Community

(1952)II. EURATOM (1958)

– Friendly usage of nuclear energy– Development of researches, technologies, coordination

of tradeIII. EEC – European Economic Community (1958),

its 3 main directions:1. Establishment of a customs union2. Establishment of an economic union3. Establishment of development funds

Ratification (1957): D, F, I, NL, B, L International voice

– GB: stayed out (common agricultural, customs policy not its interest)

– SU: just a ‘further imperialist manoeuvre’

44

1st widening, 1973.

1970: talks have started with 4 countries: GB, IRL, N, DK

Main questions (ended with compromise): GB agreed:

– Font-Sterling has not become a special currency– The French remained the 1st working language– EC evolved towards a federative way

Claims of GB (the others has not):– Temporary derogations: coastal fishing areas 10, joining to the

agricultural market 5, to the ECSC 5, to the industrial common market 4, to the EUROATOM 1 year

– Only gradually increasing contribution to the common budget till 1978

– Same place in the institutions like the other large ones (D, F, I)

Ratifications: GB, IRL, DK yes, N no Largest market (252 mn), GDP (630 bn $, however it

is only 2/3 of the US GDP)

55

Accession of Greece, 1981.

1959: application for associated membership (1962 articles of partnership)

1967–1974: ‘coup’ military junta (‘Black Colonels’) 1975: application for full EC-membership Slow political stabilization Difference: orthodox Bad relation with TR – GR – TR conflict (from the legend of

Trojan horse)– „Population exchange”, persecutions in both sides– Question of Cyprus: in 1974 TR occupied NE third of CY (Turkish

Republic of Northern Cyprus)– Jurisdictional waters of Aegean Sea

GR did not make demands Development was not a criterion GR has not catch up its lag

66

Iberian Accession, 1986. Included in the West European thought since the Romans 15th–17th century: strong, 18th–20th centrury: weakened Post-war: authority regimes remained P: Salasar

– Founding member of EFTA– Colonial wars (Angola, Mozambique), support from USA– 1974: carnation revolution – democratization by a socdem. leading

E: Franco– 1972: application for associated membership to the EEC– 1975: democratization by the leading of Juan Carlos from the top– 1982: Felipe González (NATO membership)– 1983: talks (I, F slower the accession)

Harder case: large population, agriculture, dense industry, regional policy Lot of temporary derogation, rapid economic growth EEC: increased with 50 mio people (large market) ‘Blue Europe’

77

German reunification, 1990.

1989: no one expected to this East German tourists at the Embassies of D

– Political Office (Politbüro) of DDR has resigned (free emigration, collapse of wall)

Those who could lost by the German reunification– Leaders of DDR, SU (lost position), F, GB (occupation rights)

USA: not disinterested Paris, Palace of President: agreement outside, fear

inside 1990: free elections in DDR (Christian democrats

rapid reunification) In law DDR joined to D (also to EC, NATO) D: huge country in the middle of Europe, self-restraints

88

The gradually widening EU, as synonym of Europe

Treaty of Maastricht: any European country can join, which respects the principles of the EU– Morocco: refused outside from Europe– Turkey: refused outside from Europe + other factors– But parts of the EU: Cyprus + numerous dependencies

(e.g. French Guiana) Copenhagen criteria (1993)

– Political (democracy, rule of law, human and minority rights)

– Economic (functioning market economy)– Legislative alignment (to bring the laws into the line with

EU law – acquis communautaire) Accession must not endanger the results of the

EU

99

The North Accession, 1995.

EU came to existence: who drops out, that drops behind North Countries: EFTA (European Free Trade Association)

– Good relations between EC and EFTA– 1977: free trade of industrial products– 1994: European Economic Area (EEA): EU12 + A, SF, IS, N, S (+

1995: FL) Adoption 80% single of market rules (expect for agriculture, fishing) New rules: possibility of consultation

1993: accession talks: A, SF, N, S N: refused by referendum Beneficial for EU

– Euro scepticism after Treaty of Maastricht (economic – political crisis)

– Weight of EU strengthened in world economy– Beneficial for introduction of common currency

Significance of EEA declined (hardly more than EU)– IS, FL, N, CH remained EFTA members

1010

„Reunification” of Europe, 2004. East Central Europe: transition „Europe Agreements”: association treaties (H: 1994) Committee makes country reports (avis) (June 1997) Council decides on the acceptance of application

(December 1997) 2003: referendum in the candidate countries on the

membership– H: 88% yes (however: participation only 46%)

2003: Athens: 10 countries sign the accession treaty 1st May 2004: 25 EU member states 1st January 2007: BG, RO also members 2013: Croatia (talks from 2005) 28 members

1111

Further enlargement future boundaries of EUrope Official candidate countries

– Turkey accession talks from 2005 membership unlikely before 2015–2020

– Montenegro: candidate from 2010– Iceland: accession talks from 2010 potential

accession 2013– Macedonia: candidate from 2005 with no talks– Serbia: candidate from 2012

Potential applicants: Albania, Bosnia–H, Kosovo

Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova?

Impacts of the Impacts of the enlargements on the enlargements on the

European economic patternEuropean economic pattern

1313

Effects of East Accession

13 countries wanted to access More underdeveloped ones Widening and deepening at the same

time:– Community achievements (acquis

communautaire) should remain– EU should remain being able to be financed

Area increased with 34%, agricultural land area 50%, pop. 29%, agricultural producers 100%, GDP 9%

Per capita GDP: decreased with 16%

– Institutional bodies should function

1414

Impacts of enlargements

AreaAreaPopulationPopulationGDPGDPPer capitaPer capita GDPGDP

Gro

wth

in %

Gro

wth

in %

Position of EU in relation to the other cores

Areakm2

Population

persons

GDPPPP

Per cap GDPPPP

ExportUS $

ImportUS $

EU4,3 mnWR7

490 mnWR3

14,82 bnWR1

32700WR31

1,95 bnWR1

1,69 bnWR2

USA9,8 mnWR3

310 mnWR4

14,66 bnWR2

47200WR10

1,29 bnWR3

1,94 bnWR1

Japan380 thWR60

130 mnWR11

4,31 bnWR4

34000WR28

0,76 bnWR4

0,64 bnWR4

China9,6 mnWR4

1300 mnWR1

10,09 bnWR3

7600WR100

1,58 bnWR2

1,33 bnWR3

1616

The pattern of European The pattern of European economyeconomy

1717

Shifting of the economic Shifting of the economic CoreCore

1818

Geogrpahical concentration of Geogrpahical concentration of the economy still remained in the economy still remained in the Corethe Core

Economic development:Economic development:GDP per capitaGDP per capita

Economic density:Economic density:area GDP per areaarea GDP per area

1919

The European PentagonThe European Pentagon

Pentagon/CorePentagon/Core– Area: 20%Area: 20%– Population: 40%Population: 40%– GDP: 50%GDP: 50%

Cities over 500.000 residents:Cities over 500.000 residents:– population: 20%population: 20%– GDP: 29%GDP: 29%– GDP/cap.: 141%GDP/cap.: 141%– GDP-growth: faster with +8%-GDP-growth: faster with +8%-

pointpoint

2020

Economic Importance Economic Importance of Cities in North of Cities in North AmericaAmerica Economic development measured only Economic development measured only

with per capita GDPwith per capita GDP– At current market prices in €At current market prices in €– Examined area: V4 Countries (CZ, HU, PL, SK)Examined area: V4 Countries (CZ, HU, PL, SK)– Examined regional level: NUTS3Examined regional level: NUTS3– Examined period: 1995–2004Examined period: 1995–2004

Data source: Eurostat Data source: Eurostat http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/

Proportion of cities in Canada/USA

country population

GDP

USA (SMA) 38% 49%

Canada (CMA)

45% 54%

2121

Growing Importance of Growing Importance of Cities in European Cities in European Economic PatternEconomic Pattern

Studying success of Studying success of cities becomes a key cities becomes a key issue for current issue for current European regional European regional trends and regional trends and regional policypolicy

Most of the cities over Most of the cities over averageaverageSome countries: only Some countries: only

the cities are over the cities are over average (e. g. V4)average (e. g. V4)

Some countries: other Some countries: other inequality factors are inequality factors are more important more important (Germany, Italy, (Germany, Italy, Romania, Spain)Romania, Spain)

Economic Development State of Economic Development State of Cities and Rural Regions Related Cities and Rural Regions Related to their National Average, 2004.to their National Average, 2004.

2222

Differences of Urban–Rural Differences of Urban–Rural Duality in Member States of Duality in Member States of EU, 2004EU, 2004

Source of data:Source of data: Eurostat, basis Eurostat, basis of map: World of map: World GazetteerGazetteer

Cities over 500.000 Cities over 500.000 residents:residents:

population: 20%population: 20%GDP: 29%GDP: 29%GDP/cap.: 141%GDP/cap.: 141%GDP-growth: faster with GDP-growth: faster with

+8%-point+8%-pointMeasuring Urban–Rural Measuring Urban–Rural

DualityDualityDDURUR: urban–rural duality index: urban–rural duality indexxxUU: average per capita GDP of : average per capita GDP of

cities in a countrycities in a countryxxRR: average per capita GDP of : average per capita GDP of

rural regions in a countryrural regions in a country

R

UUR x

xD

2323

y = -3E-05x + 2.4688

R2 = 0.4989

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000

national per capita GDP, €

urb

an

–ru

ral

du

ali

ty i

nd

ex

Latvia

Hungary

Czech Republic

PolandBulgaria

Romania

Lithuania

Portugal

Greece

Spain Italy

France

Belgium

NetherlandsSweeden

Ireland

Denmark

FinlandAustria

Italy

Spain

Poland

Germany

France

United Kingdom Netherlands

SwedenUnited Kingdom

Germany

Slovakia

Relationship Between State of Relationship Between State of Development and Urban–Rural Development and Urban–Rural Duality for EU Members, 2004Duality for EU Members, 2004

Source of data:Source of data: EuroStat EuroStat

2424

Post-socialist countries: Post-socialist countries: characterized with growing characterized with growing urban–rural dualismurban–rural dualism

Chiefly the Chiefly the outstanding of outstanding of capitalscapitals

More remarkable More remarkable in case of in case of underdeveloped, underdeveloped, catching-up V4 catching-up V4 countries than countries than older membersolder members

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

Slova

kia

Belgiu

m

Hungary

Bulgar

ia

Latvi

a

Czech

Rep

ublic

Poland

Portugal

France

Roman

ia

Denm

ark

Austria

Germ

any

EU

Irela

nd

Finla

nd

United K

ingdom

Nether

lands

Lithuan

ia

Sweden

Spain

Italy

Greec

e

Du

r, u

rba

n–

rura

l d

ua

lity

in

de

x

1995

2004

Change of Urban–Rural Change of Urban–Rural Duality in EU Member Duality in EU Member States, 1995–2004States, 1995–2004

Source of data:Source of data: EuroStat EuroStat

2525

PostPost--socialist cities are to join socialist cities are to join to the 2nd level of European to the 2nd level of European city-networkcity-network Post-socialist cities: new development wave (similar to Post-socialist cities: new development wave (similar to

Southern Periphery) based chiefly on international Southern Periphery) based chiefly on international investmentsinvestments

New European models on Peripheries should adjust the New European models on Peripheries should adjust the classic urban zone of Blue Bananaclassic urban zone of Blue Banana

– Sunbelt or (Golden Banana)Sunbelt or (Golden Banana)– Central European Boomerang)Central European Boomerang)

2626

V4: success of cities not V4: success of cities not independent of the shift of independent of the shift of their sectoral structuretheir sectoral structure V4: success of cities not independent of the V4: success of cities not independent of the

shift of their sectoral structureshift of their sectoral structure– Increase of urban–rural inequality is mainly tertiary Increase of urban–rural inequality is mainly tertiary

basedbased– Industrial renewal hide in the background of fine Industrial renewal hide in the background of fine

differences among rural regionsdifferences among rural regionsAgricultureAgriculture IndustryIndustry ServicesServices

Cities 1995–Cities 1995–2004.2004. 1.31.3 1.81.8 2.62.6

Rural regions Rural regions 1995–2004.1995–2004. 1.31.3 1.91.9 2.12.1

Growth Indexes of Gross Value Added Growth Indexes of Gross Value Added (GVA) in the Sectors in V4 Countries, (GVA) in the Sectors in V4 Countries, 1995–2004.1995–2004.